Appeal No. 1996-3980
Application 08/290,125
present invention,” and that Maruno does not “disclose nanocrystalline magnetic Fe O particles in
3 4
intimate association (chemically or physically) with an ionic exchange resin matrix of the type which is
well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be water insoluble as in the present invention” (brief,
pages 6-7). While appellants correctly point out that Maruno does not disclose a classic ion exchange
resin, we point out that the term “a resin” in claim 1 is not limited to “ion exchange resins,” as we
discussed above, and agree with the examiner that there is no limitation in claim 1 with respect to the
water solubility of the “resin.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348-49, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA
1982). As we set forth above, Maruno does disclose that the nanosized magnetic particles are
chemically bound to the polysaccharide carboxyalkyl ether and would be expected to comprise in part
particles of Fe O . Further, with respect to appellants’ allegations that Maruno “does not specifically
3 4
disclose the nanoscale magnetic particle clusters” (brief, page 7), we find no limitation in claim 1
specifying that the nanocrystalline particles of Fe O are in the form of clusters. Thus, we are not
3 4
persuaded by appellants’ arguments and evidence that the complexes of polysaccharide carboxyalkyl
ethers and magnetic iron oxide particles of Maruno are not the same as the magnetic nanocomposite
compositions of claim 1.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of anticipation found in Maruno with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and
argument for no anticipation in fact and find that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims
1 through 3 and 5 through 9, 11 and 24 through 27 are anticipated as a matter of fact under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Therefore, we affirm this ground of rejection.
Turning now to the ground of rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated under § 102(b) or, in the
alternative, as being obvious under § 103 over Chang, we agree with the examiner’s finding that this
reference discloses in Chang Example 2 a sulfonated cross-linked polystyrene ion-exchange resin that
contains magnetic iron oxides in the form of Fe O and Fe O , as seen from col. 3, line 60. (answer,3 4 2 3
page 6). We find that in Chang Example 2, upon initial application of a “saturated solution equimolar in
FeCl and FeCl ,” which provides ferrous and ferric ions, followed by treatment with a base, the “resin2 3
particles turned dark brown . . . and were slightly magnetic” (col. 6, lines 60-68). Upon repeated
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007